Marquette Warrior

We are here to provide an independent, rather skeptical view of events at Marquette University. Comments are enabled on most posts, but extended comments are welcome and can be e-mailed to jmcadams2@juno.com. E-mailed comments will be treated like Letters to the Editor.
This site has no official connection with Marquette University. Indeed, when University officials find out about it, they will doubtless want it shut down.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Student Government: An Insider’s Perspective

Having just now caught up on the last week or so of MU blogging, I felt the need to comment on one entry in particular (although I could comment on many; so much of your nickname content is nearly identical to my diatribes to family members and arrogant p.c. friends).

As an MUSG senator, your entry about MUSG’s role in the nickname issue hit a nerve--but to be sure, I’m not writing in defense of our student government. I think Tim Smith (one of the more talented senators, without a doubt) covered any valid defenses there were. Rather, I think the criticisms of the senate that have appeared on these blogs don’t quite tell the whole story or at least don’t go far enough in articulating it.

To be blunt, the last four or five senate meetings this year were a disgrace (some would say they all were), and the final one (in which we voted on the nickname legislation) was the ultimate letdown. First of all, I think it’s important to point out that we had another piece of legislation on the table that night--a $10,000 reserve fund bill to help fund a six-figure plan to install LCD video screens around campus to advertise events. I was personally against this legislation, believing it to be an awful investment and nothing more than needless window dressing to impress tuition paying parents. But this is beside the point (for now).

My problem that night was not with the people who opposed the nickname legislation or favored the LCD bill per se--ironically, I since learned that my own brother helped to initiate and push the LCD idea. Indeed, there were a few passionate and well-framed arguments for both positions that night. What burned me was the frightening lack of independent thought from the body as a whole.

This was nothing new; in fact, it epitomized the entire year and my entire experience so far on senate.

We had just spent the three previous meetings (yes, three) filling two committee appointments and electing a president pro temp. Much of this had to do with poor attendance (another embarrassment altogether), but the way we conducted this process was farcical--and incidentally, quite typical. For three meetings, we did our little dance--the nominations, followed by the talking-up of the candidates, complete with its silly flattery, and the requisite splitting of hairs. All the while, we lowered our voices, used official-sounding words, and called each other “Senator ____” so that we could pretend we were conducting something really really really important. The body language of a few senators was priceless. I particularly recall the look of disgust on the face of Jamaul Webster, an off-campus senator who quit one meeting short of vacating his seat. I can’t say I blame him.

Somewhere between installments of “Senator ____ is the greatest because...,” we received a ridiculous demonstration/sales pitch on the LCD screens from Todd Vicker and a rep from the LCD vendor (who was obnoxiously piped in by speaker phone) during the second to last meeting. So basically MUSG had arranged a senate floor presentation with a salesman and an administrator acting as a salesman--I say it as if there’s a difference--on the week before this same senate was supposed to “represent their constituents” in a vote on the issue. Hmmmm...

So what happened? We passed the bill the next week with little opposition and in almost no time at all--less time than a round of debate for a single budget committee appointment, at least. I would imagine that the senate usually rushes to pass such things because it’s something that we can staple our name to, and that, after all, is what we seem to want primarily.

But I guess our haste was just out of courtesy; after all, we had another sales pitch to listen to before our next vote. Our guests, of course, were Rana Altenberg and Ann Zizzo, who had come to defend the BOT’s decision the day before.

Again, this is not a simple criticism of those who opposed the “Reconsider Gold” legislation that Danny Manson and Brian Baranowski (two non-MUSGers) authored. It’s a criticism of how readily some senators lapped up Zizzo’s arguments and regurgitated them in debate--even admitting they’d done a one-eighty based on Rana and Zizzo’s remarks. Schroeder Hall senator C.J. Hoffman was one who notably argued against the legislation but who had clearly come to an independent conclusion and gave some very intriguing arguments--I respected his opinion and still do. But he was the exception; most senators who were made wishy washy by Ann Zizzo’s pitch only carried out that “tool of the administration” image that MUSG has earned. Not surprisingly, a round of hard debate from the bill’s supporters brought the decision back to a rather convincing margin, even if it wasn’t convincing enough for some. I always say that minds should change during senate meetings; otherwise debate would be pointless.

What galls me is how easily an administrator’s sales pitch can change our thinking.

Perhaps the worst part of it all is the notion that we do, or for that matter, are even remotely able to speak for our “constituents.” How many senators that night truly understood the perspective of diehard athletics fans within their “constituencies?” If constituents are those with a similar common interest and a like mind to those who represent them, I would say that the only legitimate constituents of most senators are their fellow MUSG members. I hope none truly believe themselves to be the refined, enlightened voice of their colleges or residences, as the idea of constituency would imply.

But I think many do, and I blame this on the gratuitous back-patting from the administration. No matter how complacent or insular we get, we’ll always have our student development people pumping us up as “leaders” doing a “great service.” What a sham. Real cynics would say that we’re only buttered up like that so that we will kindly play along with the administration.

Cynical as I am, I am not quite that cynical--yet. But I think anyone outside MUSG would vomit if they were to attend our recognition reception at the end of the year. If the praise-fest alone couldn’t spill their stomachs, the sappy, silly video montage of the year-that-was in MUSG would have. Lord knows I wouldn’t have gone this year if not for the ritzy catering that our budget buys for the event. (Even out of principle, I couldn’t pass up the exorbitant amounts of free pies and hors d’oeuvres.)

The feel-good atmosphere that all of this creates kills almost any chance for real thinking to take place. There is such a reluctance to create any productive tension among the senate. When we appointed our new Legislative Vice President (guy who runs the meetings) and president pro temp (his right-hand man) recently, the overriding criterion for so many senators was likability (or “he makes us feel comfortable”) in selecting a candidate. While this should be a consideration, the emphasis on it made me cringe. They spoke as if the MUSG office is a life-sapping pressure cooker if not for a calming presence at the top. We were lucky enough to select very capable people for the positions, but this fact alone does not justify the means.

As the chair of our standing senate committee on academics this past year, I grew more and more aware of this emphasis on attaching our name to something tangible and a reluctance to think deeply or independently about core issues. It makes perfect sense then that we would try to leach credit off both the selection and the abolition of the Gold nickname. It’s so predictable.

I can’t speak fairly for myself, but I give credit to the other standing committee chairs and a few other senators this year who really tried to challenge their colleagues, but still, they can’t change the fact that MUSG is the best-funded social club on campus. When I think of the sheer amount of resources (union space, energy, etc.) used on MUSG, it makes my head hurt. And for what? I don’t blame new members for not seeing the organization in this light; they eat up the atmosphere so quickly, and the constant reinforcement hardly lets them get past the honeymoon.

Unfortunately, my nearly two years on MUSG has mostly proven my preconceived assumptions from my pre-senate days. Yes, we are an insular group of cohorts that would much rather do than think and would rather be told how great we are than how much better we could do. We buy into the lie that we are somehow elevated members of the university; we most certainly are, of course, if we choose to put our individual role within a centralized university community over the role of our university within society. In the latter sense, we may in fact come in last. We become as proficient in university-speak as our administrators, and this is partly why they love us so much.

But the reality is that, like nearly all other college students, we’re just kids. Some kids get off on reckless thrills or money or high grades; some get off on the warm feelings of achievement and recognition. And the latter are those that join student government--not because we’re privileged or enlightened or want to serve our Marquette brethren. We do it for these warm feelings, or as the cynics would say, a line on our resume.

This may all seem too harsh, but I think it’s time for members of MUSG to be honest with ourselves in the face of critics. If us “insiders” don’t stop acting like insiders, that is all we will ever be. It’s time to let the defenses down, to stop worrying what our friends (that is, our MUSG colleagues) think, and to prove we have minds of our own. And for these reasons, I for one welcome the challenges and harshest criticisms of you or anyone that would like to present them.

Vinnie Bergl

We’ll have some comments on Bergl’s essay shortly, but for the moment we ask our readers “is he right, and if he’s right what follows from that?”

Update: Marquette Planned to Recruit at “Gay Pride” Event

We were unable, at that time, to confirm that an actual official University representative (as opposed to, say, an ad hoc group of alumni) had planned to recruit at the event. We were also unable to confirm that any Marquette representative actually attended the event.

A phone call from Marquette’s east coast recruiter (Melissa Marabella) confirms that it was indeed she who signed up for, and planned to attend, the event.

It turned out she got stuck in Baltimore, and wasn’t able to attend.

We continue to find it odd that Marquette would recruit students among a group defined by its rejection of Church teaching on sexuality. These were not teenagers merely confused about their sexuality, nor teenagers struggling to maintain a moral lifestyle (just as heterosexuals often have to struggle). These were teenagers who have explicitly chosen to reject (and most likely sneer at) Church teaching on sexuality.

But apparently, Church teaching on sexuality isn’t something that has much value in the Admissions office.

Memorial Day Editorial Cartoons

Sunday, May 29, 2005

Marquette Trustees = Politburo

Madison blog Letters in Bottles reacted to a post of ours about the Marquette Trustees, and especially John Stollenwerk, a trustee who sent a friend an e-mail saying that the “Gold” decision should be “rescinded,” but then the following day insisted that he was 100% behind the decision. The day after that the decision was rescinded.

It’s an unfair comparison, but I’m a history major (among other things), so I’ll take the liberty of pointing out that the grand ol’ USSR, after Stalin came to power, created a rule that allowed for internal Party discussion, but provided that the Party must present a unified front once a decision had been made.

I suspect that a similar mentality is present here. The naming committee was obviously facing tremendous criticism at the time this e-mail came out. If the committee showed any fractures, it would have absolutely imploded — even though it essentially did anyway. The real pity here is that Stollenwerk had the opportunity to be something of a (to continue my USSR theme) Gorbachev, and take a position within the committee as the “voice of the people.” If he had been smarter about this politically, he could have pushed for these e-mails to be made public, and thus been seen as a leader who was truly in touch with what the student body wanted. Instead he’s trying to play it both ways, and that never works.

Of course the Trustees aren’t Stalinist functionaries, but they did fall into the trap of trying to present a “united front.” Honest airing of honest differences simply works better.

Consider what would have happened in Washington, DC, where everything leaks like a sieve. In the fall, when it became clear that Fr. Wild was going to let the tribal chiefs veto “Warriors” that would have leaked. Soon thereafter, the fact that a Marquette survey showed “Golden Eagles” to be a real loser would also have leaked.

There would have been intense criticism of the Administration for letting a group of race hustlers veto the nickname everybody wanted, but it would not have been worse than what eventually happened.

There would have been a vigorous discussion of what the new nickname should be, coupled with loud demands to allow a vote on the issue.

The Trustees, at that point, could have easily decided to allow an election. Had they somehow believed they needed to make a decision without an official poll, they would at least have had the benefit of unofficial straw polls and exchanges on discussion boards like those at rivals.com and scout.com.

Indeed, had they been smart they would have intentionally leaked the fact that “Gold” was under consideration. This would have provided what amounted to free market research as people jeered at the name.

Instead they showed a bunker mentality, thinking that they would somehow gain some advantage by keeping the heathen in the dark.

They doubtless thought this shrewd, but in fact it was terribly naïve, and it backfired.

The EU report also said former U.S. President Carter, who led a team of 50 election observers, undermined the electoral process and EU criticism with “his premature blessing of the elections and early positive assessment of the results.”

Unless there is a “drastic reverse toward good democratic practice” the observer team and EU “will have to publicly denounce the situation.”

“Otherwise, the EU jointly with ex-President Carter will be held largely responsible for the lack of transparency, and assumed rigging, of the elections.”

Carter has a rather unsavory history of giving his blessing to nasty tyrants, while at the same time attacking President Bush.

Perhaps it’s time to face the fact that he’s not a hero of democracy, but rather a sanctimonious busy-body.

On a personal level, religiosity is merely annoying — like bad taste. This immaturity represents a significant social problem, however, because religious adherents fail to recognize their limitations. So, in the name of their faith, these moral retards are running around pointing fingers and doing real harm to others. One only has to read the newspaper to see the results of their handiwork. They discriminate, exclude and belittle. They make a virtue of closed-mindedness and virulent ignorance. They are an ugly, violent lot.

American Christians like to think that religious violence is a problem only for other faiths. In the heart of every Christian, though, is a tiny voice preaching self-righteousness, paranoia and hatred. Christians claim that theirs is a faith based on love, but they’ll just as soon kill you. For your own good, of course. Those who believe that they are acting out the divine plan are the most dangerous sort in the contemporary world. Make no mistake.

Can there be any doubt that humanity would be better off without religion? Everyone who appreciates the good, the true and the beautiful has a duty to challenge this social poison at every opportunity. It is not enough to be irreligious; we must use our critique to expose religion for what it is: sanctimonious nonsense.

Shortell’s rant appears to be a classic case of the psychological mechanism of projection. He is projecting onto Christians the self-righteousness, paranoia and hatred in his own heart.

Brooklyn College is being cagy in its reaction. According Inside Higher Ed :

[College President Christoph] Kimmich deplored the “offensive, anti-religion opinions” of Shortell. “While his right to express these views is protected, what is not protected is the injection of views like these into the classroom or into any administrative duties he might assume as chair of the sociology department.”

Kimmich appointed three college officials to “investigate” the situation and report.

Does anybody doubt that, had Shortell said things like this about blacks or homosexuals he would have been immediately dumped as department chair? A college would not wonder whether these views might intrude into the classroom or administrative decisions, it would assume they most likely would.

Indeed, would he keep his job? Since academic freedom still means something, a similarly virulent anti-black or anti-gay faculty member might not be fired, but he or she would most certainly be harassed, denied pay raises, denied the opportunity to teach “sensitive” classes, and generally given the message “you should leave.”

Interestingly, Shortell especially attacks American Christians, and has nothing bad to say about Islam. This while militant Islamicists are killing people in terrorists attacks, and activist Christian conservatives in the U.S. are mobilizing their cohorts to get out and vote.

Shortell represents the ugly underside of liberal Democratic politics. His views are close to being mainstream in the Democratic party among the fans of Howard Dean, the people who applauded Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” regular listeners of Air America, and indeed regular listeners of National Public Radio.

Conservatives should not get upset at the rants of people like Shortell. They should, rather, bask in the sight of the liberal movement and the Democratic party destroying themselves.

Two final notes on Shortell: he got his Ph.D. at that fine Catholic school, Boston College, and his publication record is very poor, showing only one article in a semi-reputable journal. One of the things that sometimes makes the ideological bias of academics less pernicious is that so many are careerists, concerned with professional advancement, and not with the indoctrination of their students. That’s certainly a good thing, although it doesn’t begin to substitute for real intellectual diversity in academia.

Friday, May 27, 2005

American Indians Among Admirers Of Redskins Name

Interestingly, most of the people who sizzle with outrage over Indian team names and mascots are not Indians. American Indians can be found vigorously arguing on both sides. Academics are split, too: Anthropologists call team names and mascots humiliating, while linguists say “redskin” describes “stalwart attributes.” Even dictionaries disagree (the Oxford English says “redskin” is “generally benign,” while Webster’s says it is “usually offensive”).

There are at least three versions of the name’s origin. The official story, says team spokesman Karl Swanson, is that when the Boston Braves football team left Braves Field to play at Fenway Park in 1933, owner George Preston Marshall needed a new name for his squad.

He chose Redskins in honor of Lone Star Dietz, the team’s coach and an Indian who often wore an eagle feather headdress, beaded deerskin jacket and buckskin moccasins. Dietz brought four to six — accounts vary — Indian players with him to Boston from the Haskell Indian School in Kansas, where he had coached for four years.

Another version has the team being named for the white men who dressed up as Indians to stage the Boston Tea Party at the start of the American Revolution. Yet another genesis story says the name stems from the colored clay that Plains Indians used to paint themselves for tribal ceremonies.

Whichever version is right, “the reality is more benign than people on both sides of the fence are attributing to it,” says sports historian and museum consultant Frank Ceresi. “The name was meant very, very positively.”

Fischer then goes on to explain how the Redskins, who by the 60s had pretty much abandoned Indian imagery, restored it:

But it is clear that the Boston Redskins, who moved to Washington in 1937, sought to capitalize on their Indian players and coach: The team played wearing red war paint. And Indian players from the time considered the name and trappings an honor.

So does Walter Wetzel, former chairman of the Blackfoot tribe and president of the National Congress of American Indians in the 1960s. By the early ‘60s, the Redskins had dropped any reference to Indians in their logo, uniforms and merchandise. Wetzel went to the Redskins office with photos of Indians in full headdress.

“I said, ‘I’d like to see an Indian on your helmets,’” which then sported a big “R” as the team logo, remembers Wetzel, now 86 and retired in Montana. Within weeks, the Redskins had a new logo, a composite Indian taken from the features in Wetzel’s pictures. “It made us all so proud to have an Indian on a big-time team. . . . It’s only a small group of radicals who oppose those names. Indians are proud of Indians.”

This, of course, is the sort of history the politically correct crowd ignores.

Want to Buy a Nickname Vote?

On second thought the whole process, in which the Administration has outlawed people voting for the nickname everybody wants (Warriors), is so corrupt anyway I see no need to have any particular scruples about it.

Why should anybody respect the “integrity” of a process that’s a sham anyway?

Can’t Offend Anybody?

From the Provincial Emails blog: An email “Message about Marquette University’s nickname” includes the full quote from Fr. Wild.

“While I recognize that some people are disappointed that we are not reinstating the Warriors nickname, we cannot teach one principle about respect for human dignity in our classrooms and then fail to act by that same principle when making decisions,” Father Wild said. “The Warriors nickname will always be part of our proud athletics tradition, and we will honor that tradition. But we live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings.”

As I read it, he says that Christians are morally obligated to refrain from actions, including the use of words, which are neither objectively offensive nor subjectively intended to be offensive, if any other person believes them to be so.

He obviously cannot mean that, since the MU administration has been handling this issue in way demeaning to students and alumni for over a decade, and its proposed further handlng continues this. This standard, rather, applies only to designated victim groups, and on the terms demanded by those who MU decides are such groups’ representatives.

Even the Nicene Creed could not be proclaimed under such a standard; its assertions offend some who hold other religious beliefs, or none, or the equality of all beliefs. So, as I have recounted before, it should come as no surprise that my freshman Theology prof at MU repeatedly denied the existence of the Holy Spirit. I’m tending to conclude that sometime after that, the Holy Spririt ceased believing in MU. Indeed, some people would consider the Nicene Creed to be offensive. After all, some people consider “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to be offensive.

But we all know that some demeaning language is quite acceptable among the politically correct. Feminists are allowed to demean men, militant blacks to demean whites, gays to demean conservative Christians, and liberals to demean Republicans, people who own guns, people who drive SUVs and indeed pretty much anybody who doesn’t agree with their politics.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

More on the People Who Don’t Like “Warriors”

DENVER - The Denver City Attorney dropped charges against protesters who blocked the Columbus Day Parade, after eight organizers argued that the celebration of Columbus represents hate speech and encourages the theft of land and loss of language and culture in Indian country.

If anybody doesn’t like a parade, of course, they have a right to protest it. But the protestors claimed the right to disrupt the parade because it constituted “hate speech.”

Finegan said Denver County judges ruled that Denver’s loitering ordinance cannot be used to prosecute the protesters, even though protesters “deliberately disrupted the Columbus Day parade.”

[City Attorney Cole] Finegan announced that his office would draft ordinances, modeled upon the state laws that make it illegal to disrupt a lawful assembly and to obstruct a highway or a passageway. “We hope that these new ordinances will better protect the First Amendment rights of both parade participants and protesters.”

Following the rulings, defendants said the leading newspapers in Denver reflected the anti-Indian sentiment in their opinion articles, siding with the Italian American promoters of the Columbus Day parade.

Denver Post columnist Ed Quillen said Denver police acted correctly when they arrested the protesters. In his column on Jan. 25 titled “These are civil rights?,” Quillen disagreed with the defendants and said that Columbus Day parade does not represent hate speech. Further, he said the government does not have an obligation to suppress hate speech.

“We have the right to march in parades to celebrate Martin Luther King or Nathan Bedford Forrest, to honor Sitting Bull or George Armstrong Custer, and we have the right to stand on the sidelines and heckle the paraders.” Quillen said the defense attorneys should not have portrayed their clients as “heroic defenders of civil rights.”

The Rocky Mountain News editorial on Jan. 22 was titled “Intimidation law sadly misused.” The newspaper disagreed with the defense argument that the parade was a form of ethnic intimidation.

One of the protestors who was arrested later became very famous. His name was Ward Churchill.

Judicial Activism

Imagine a society that makes many of its most important decisions in the following manner: a tiny number of citizens are anointed members of a priestly caste, which has the power to determine the society’s most fundamental rules.

The priests make these decisions by consulting ancient texts, written in an archaic language that remains incomprehensible to much of the laity. Nevertheless impious souls sometimes point out that the texts don’t appear to answer the questions which the priests ask of them. This impression is reinforced by the fact that members of the priesthood disagree violently among themselves regarding what the texts actually say

Imagine further that, in this strange society, members of the priesthood are appointed for life by a legislative council that often has no clear idea what a priestly candidate’s views are regarding the meaning of the ancient texts. This is a consequence of a custom that declares it improper to inquire too closely into a potential priest’s views on such matters, when his fitness for the priesthood is considered.

The oddest feature of this society is that it considers itself a model of democratic rule, even though it has placed a great deal of political power in the hands of an unelected, life-tenured, and thoroughly mysterious priesthood.

Campos is a bit off-base on one point. It is considered proper to inquire about the priest’s views during confirmation. Indeed, the Democrats have made supporting Roe v. Wade a litmus test that all judges must pass.

That is, in fact, sensible on their part. But the Republicans need to be equally rigorous in imposing their own litmus test. They should insist that any judges they appoint are committed to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Tolerant Liberals – 106

Persecuting the Boy Scouts in Madison

Persecuting the Boy Scouts has become routine among the politically correct crowd, since the Scouts insist that homosexuality is at odds with the Scout oath requiring that Scouts be “morally straight.”

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Alum Protests Voting Procedure

Another e-mail sent to the Administration and copied to us Dear Sir or Madam,

Why is Marquette adding insult to injury by making the nickname selection process such a sham? This is a free election in the same sense that the Warsaw Pact had free elections. From what I can see, this is what constitutes “seeking stakeholder input” at Marquette:

Unknown and unnamed Marquette bureaucrats present a list of acceptable choices to the Nickname Advisory Committee.

The Nickname Advisory Committee is allowed to choose a top ten from this dictated list.

“Marquette Stakeholders” are allowed to choose a finalist from these predetermined choices. Any choice deemed unacceptable by the Marquette bureaucracy will be discarded.

Why don’t we just complete the imitation of a Soviet style election and have Marquette officials stand behind each stakeholder as he/she votes? That way we could punish those who vote incorrectly.

I am in the minority in that I have faith in the wisdom of Marquette students, faculty, and alumni. I don’t think they need to be lead like sheep to the “correct” choice.

The good news is we still have time to correct this rigged election process. Please do not throw away Marquette stakeholder input by tossing out votes. Please have faith in the values and education we gained at Marquette and count all of our ballots.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,Carl BoracaBusiness Administration Class of 2000 The jibe about a “Soviet style election” is right on target. The one most important characteristic of politically correct people is their authoritarianism. They have an obsession with outlawing and punishing things that they don’t like.

It turns out that the basis for the “gay-friendly” classification was Marquette’s participation in something called the “Youth Pride College Fair” in Washington, DC on April 23rd. Sponsored by the DC Youth Pride Alliance, it is claimed to fill “a real gap for gay students looking for safe and supportive college experiences.”

Marquette has failed to confirm that an official representative was indeed at this event. Two calls to Melissa Marabella, the Admissions office east coast recruiter have gone unreturned. We reached a representative of the Admissions office early yesterday afternoon who promised to check this and get back to us. She has yet to do so.

We reached Nate DeCarolis, President of the Youth Pride Alliance (and organizer of the event) and he confirmed that Marquette did indeed register to be present, but did not know whether a representative showed up or not. He also could not confirm exactly who from Marquette registered. In principle, it might have been some informal alumni group in Washington, although the silence of the Admissions office strongly suggests that an actual official representative was there.

The event was lightly attended, and was rescheduled for June 4th. According to DeCarolis, Marquette has not signed up for the new date.

Of course Marquette, like any good Catholic university, can be “gay-friendly” up to a point. It can certainly protect gay students from harassment. It’s also the case that Catholic teaching has no quarrel with people whose orientation is homosexual, but who don’t engage in homosexual acts. But this observation is purely academic, since the “gay pride” crowd considers it terminally quaint that anybody should refrain from any sex act because of religious scruples.

What any Catholic university cannot do is support homosexual students in their homosexuality. Of course, the usual politically correct suspects at Marquette reject this. But the University claims, at least, to be faithful to Church teaching, even when it’s unfashionable.

Thus it’s odd to find Marquette apparently recruiting among a group defined by its hostility to Church teaching on sexuality and its demand that this teaching be rescinded or (at least) ignored. These were not young people confused about their sexuality, but rather a “gay pride” gathering.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Marquette’s Nickname Advisory Committee

If you read the University’s press releases, you might think that the Nickname Advisory Committee had a major role in deciding on the list of ten names that has been presented to University stakeholders.

In fact, it did not.

The Committee was presented with a very short list of “top choices” — with University bureaucrats having decided what was a “top choice.”

In fact, the Committee only changed one name on the list, added one, and struck two. They changed Knights to “Golden Knights.” They added “Saints.” What two names did they strike?

“Gold Rush” and “Gold.”

That’s right. The University presented “Gold” to the Committee as a choice they might want to put on the list.

It’s hard to know whether the Administration really honestly believed that “Gold” deserved another chance — after all, it’s just barely possible that Ford might introduce a new Edsel — or whether it was included on the list merely to allow the Committee to strike it and have the illusion that they had some power.

All this is not to say that the members of the Committee felt they were railroaded in selecting the list of ten nickname candidates. They felt that had they wanted to open up the process and toss most of the names on the list the University submitted they could do so.

Established Religion in Denmark

Freedom of worship is guaranteed to all. However, the Evangelical Lutheran Church is subsidized by the government as the official state religion. The faith is taught in public schools, although students may withdraw from religious classes with parental consent. While 95 percent of the population belongs to the Church, membership and church attendance are on the decline, and Danes are widely disgruntled with the Church’s basic teachings. In June, Pastor Thorkild Grosboell of Taarbeck was suspended for publicly stating that he does not believe in God, but the suspension was lifted in July.

In Denmark, Lutheran ministers are hired and fired by the government. Happily, in the U.S. we don’t have established religion, so individual denominations get to decide for themselves whether they mind clergy that don’t believe in God.

A fair number seem not to.

But when the Boy Scouts can be persecuted for wanting only Scoutmasters who abide by Christian teaching about sexuality, we aren’t that far from this sort of European decadence.

Monday, May 23, 2005

Arts & Sciences Graduation Fiasco

Marquette’s Sunday morning commencement at the Bradley Center usually gets media coverage, but none of the undergraduates get their diplomas there. Rather, all the schools and colleges have their own ceremonies on Sunday afternoon.

This afternoon ceremony has been an especial favorite of faculty, since they have an opportunity to say goodby to students, meet parents, and sometimes even pose for a photo or two. An informal ceremony, it always involved faculty and students forming up by department and marching to the stage behind a standard. Students would walk across the stage one at a time, get their diplomas (actually, diploma covers) and shake hands with the Dean. They would then leave the stage and shake hands with their department’s faculty, who would form a sort of receiving line. Within a few short minutes it was over, with faculty and students having time to socialize before both groups turned in their rented gowns and drifted away.

That’s the way it used to be.

But not yesterday.

Some parents complained about the informality and apparent lack of organization, and the Arts and Sciences College changed everything. The ceremony yesterday was converted into something very close to the morning ceremony, with all the students marching in, and then all the faculty marching in, and then the “stage party” marching in.

Faculty and students were segregated. And then both groups sat and sat.

There was the usual invocation, and the Standard Marquette Speech from Dean Michael A. McKinney. The Standard Marquette Speech must quote extensively from both esteemed Jesuits and politically correct black authors. However all the quotes must be banal.

Somewhere on the Marquette staff, hidden in some garret, is the Standard Marquette Speech Speechwriter. He or she needs to be reassigned to other duties.

All the students then paraded across the stage, one at a time, to get their diplomas (covers, as always). This took well over an hour. When the last person in the line, a young lady whose last name began with “Z,” crossed the stage there was a resounding round of applause.

Either she just happened, by a wild coincidence, to be far and away the most popular person in the entire College, or people were really happy the ordeal was over.

Everybody was marched out. The recessional was a song called “Celebration” by Kool & The Gang. Considered in isolation, a good and gutsy choice. But if the point was to create more formality, they should have stuck with that estimable Dead White European Male, Sir Edward William Elgar.

There was supposed to be a reception with refreshments after the ceremony. But nobody could find it. We still don’t know where it was, and in fact doubt that it ever existed. If it did, nobody else knew how to find it either.

And then, to add insult to injury, somebody set off a fire alarm. The crowd, sensibly, ignored orders to vacate the building, but the event was over anyway, and people quickly left.

Pretty much a wasted afternoon, from a faculty perspective. And a lot less good than it could have been for the students.

Dean Mike McKinney is widely respected by faculty for his sound judgment. But nobody bats 1.000.

Warrior Vote Will Not Spoil Ballot

The Marquette Warrior Blog has confirmed, as of two minutes ago, via a phone call to Brigid O’Brien (Office of Public Affairs):

A write-in vote for “Warriors” will not spoil a ballot in the nickname election. In other words, if you write in “Warriors” and pick one of the other choices, they will refuse to count “Warriors,” but will count your other vote.

Our Advice: Vote Warriors

The University has released its list of possible nicknames. Most of the names were pretty much expected, although Knights, Saints, Spirit and Wolves seem to come out of nowhere.

The arrogance that has marked the whole process is evident in the e-mail the University sent out. It notes:

To be counted, write-in nicknames must be consistent with the university’s Catholic, Jesuit mission and the Board of Trustee’s resolution forbidding Native American imagery and references. Additionally, write-in suggestions of nicknames that are intended to mock or embarrass the university will not be counted. Any nicknames under review by the NCAA for their relationship to Native American imagery will not be counted. Examples of nicknames that will not be counted include Warriors (or any variation of the word, i.e., war) and Jumpin’ Jesuits.

Translation: We will listen to you, but only if you tell us what we want to hear.

You have a choice, but only after the choice you really want has been ruled out.

Our recomnentation: write in “Warriors.” Of course that could be seen as “throwing your vote away,” but none of the other choices are especially exciting. None are terrible either.

The University, faced with a lot of “Warriors” write-ins, will doubtless refuse to disclose how many there were. And this fact will doubtless lead to the widespread perception that there were a very, very many.

Writing in “Warriors” is simply a way of saying “I’m not going to participate in this sham process on the terms you dictate. You can arrogantly refuse to count my vote, but I’m not going to play your corrupt game.”

Nickname List Announced

An official Marquette Press Release, just in via e-mail:“MU Voice” Marquette nickname voting to begin Tuesday; nicknames list announced

Students, alumni, faculty, staff and season ticket holders will begin voting Tuesday in an online survey to select the university’s athletics nickname. In a process previously announced by the Board of Trustees, “MU Voice” will allow the Marquette community to participate in a series of two binding votes. The first slate of 10 names plus the option of a write-in is available online in a survey conducted by Advantage Research, an independent research firm.

The nicknames included in the survey were compiled from suggestions received by the university in 1994, 2004 and 2005. The Nickname Advisory Committee had an opportunity to provide input on the slate of nicknames. The committee of students, alumni, faculty, staff and a member of the Board of Trustees was appointed by President Robert Wild, S.J., following the board’s announcement of the new selection process. The committee is charged with an advisory role in oversight of the voting process and to assist in the development of strategies to involve the entire Marquette community in creating the visual identity for the athletics nickname once it is selected. Additional committee details, including a roster, are online at http://marquette.edu/nickname.

Nickname list

The following nicknames are listed here alphabetically but will appear in random order on the survey.

Blue and GoldMarquette’s first nickname, circa 1892 to 1916, was used for the football team. Since then, “blue and gold” have remained Marquette’s official colors in athletics and throughout the university.

ExplorersMarquette University’s namesake, Father Jacques Marquette, was a Jesuit missionary and explorer. The spirit of exploration, whether through seeking truth and knowledge in our classrooms or seeking athletic achievements in competition, characterizes Marquette, students and alumni.

Golden AvalancheFrom 1924-37, Marquette’s football team was dubbed the “Golden Avalanche” by the sports media for the sight of the football players in golden helmets charging down the field, creating a “golden avalanche” of force. It is a name that represents a powerful force and overwhelming might.

Golden EaglesSince 1994, Marquette’s athletics nickname has been the “Golden Eagles,” effectively combining the gold of Marquette’s athletics traditions with the bold, swift and forceful nature of Marquette’s athletics teams.

Golden KnightsKnights are known for bravery, dedication and their noble defense of important causes. Student-athletes are proud to share those same characteristics, as is the university. Knights are part of the athletics history of the Jesuits in Wisconsin, as Campion Jesuit High School in Prairie du Chien, Wis., used the knights as its nickname for 95 years until it closed in 1975.

HilltoppersThe name Hilltoppers has been connected to Marquette Athletics since 1917 and was first used because the original Marquette building was erected on top of a hill at 10th and State. The name represents a person who has attained great heights, like the lofty goals set by Marquette’s students and coaches.

SaintsThe Marquette community has created a special tie to two saints: St. Ignatius, the founder of the Jesuits, and St. Joan of Arc, the namesake of the chapel on the Marquette campus. Saints are among our most revered figures, admired for their strength and perseverance, two qualities also found in every Marquette player and fan.

SpiritIn one word, Spirit captures the character and energy of student-athletes and coaches, and the enthusiasm that students, alumni and fans bring to every game. At Marquette, spirit can refer to a higher power.

VoyagersVoyagers take risks, explore new horizons, and push ever forward into new worlds. Like Marquette’s namesake, student-athletes push the limits of the possible. As an academic institution, Marquette encourages that same voyage toward truth and knowledge.

WolvesThe wolf is part of the crest of the family of St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, and is featured on the official seal of Marquette. It represents strength and fierceness, two characteristics always found at the heart of Marquette teams.

Write-in option Voters will have the opportunity to select up to two nicknames on the first vote, one of which can include a write-in option, provided that selection adheres to the Board of Trustees' criteria. To be counted, write-in nicknames must be consistent with the university’s Catholic, Jesuit mission and the Board of Trustee’s resolution forbidding Native American imagery and references. Additionally, write-in suggestions of nicknames that are intended to mock or embarrass the university will not be counted. Any nicknames under review by the NCAA for their relationship to Native American imagery will not be counted. Examples of nicknames that will not be counted include Warriors (or any variation of the word, i.e., war) and Jumpin’ Jesuits.

Voting details

The first vote will run through Sunday, June 5. The two nicknames receiving the most votes will be presented to the Marquette community on Tuesday, June 7, for a second vote. The nickname with the most votes in the second vote will then be presented to Father Wild to be announced as Marquette’s athletics nickname in time for the university’s entry into the Big East Conference on July 1. Both votes are binding.

After a nickname has been announced, Marquette will engage the university community through focus groups and forums in the design of its visual identity.

Nickname Comments

Here is a collection of the best comments we have been sent on the whole nickname controversy.

First, a correspondent who recounts a naming fiasco similar to “Gold” — but not one that made it into the media:

I wanted to share my comments on Marquette’s new name. I’m an alumnus and returning student (PhD). This has got to rank right up there with Ween-ergies. I’m a retired engineer from GE Med but I was part of the original Marquette Electronics long before GE bought it. When GE took over, they decided to rename it GE Medical Systems Healthcare Information Technologies (GEMSHIT). They spent weeks deciding on the new name, and when it was announced it took the employee audience about fifteen seconds to recognize the acronym — the place howled with laughter. Within a week GE changed it to GEMS-IT, getting the “H” out of there.

An alum writes to explain what happened when he protested the earlier name change from “Warriors" to “Golden Eagles:”

I’m a Marquette alum (1990, engineering), and I protested the Golden Eagles name change. I think I might still have the response I got from Bill Cords, responding to my letter. At the time, I didn’t think that “Golden Eagles” was a bad nickname (I still don’t); my objection was that the change wasn’t necessary, and that the whole process was dishonest (Marquette “Lightning,” anyone?).

The response was probably one of the most condescending letters I have ever received (yes, this was back in the day of actual “letters” on paper). I was a little shocked that he personally responded, but I must have hit a nerve. It verified that the thinking of the “insiders” was exactly what it appeared to be: that they knew better than everyone else, that it was perfectly fine for the process to be hidden from public view, and that I was a racist, small-minded, reactionary who should mind his own business. That’s a summary; the actual letter is far more long-winded.

Ten years, different people, same result.

Bob Arthur

Several e-mail correspondents decided to accept that “Warriors” will not come back, and provided other suggestions:

At work today I was trying to come up with some good nicknames that could be added as write-ins on the upcoming ballot. All of them somewhat capture the spirit of “Warrior,” especially the strength and leadership qualities. I like the first one the best.

Marquette GeneralsMarquette CommandersMarquette Admirals

Best regards,Nick Bellovary Class of 2002

In fact, several correspondents took the position that, if it can’t be Warriors, let me be something that captures the essense of “Warriors.”

I’m glad to see that the administration decided not to go for the Gold, but I’m still embarrassed for the school that they still refuse to go back to Warriors. However, there may be a way around it. Considering that Pere Marquette was French, maybe “Guerriers” (French for Warriors) could sneak past the Jesuits. Of course, you can’t exactly say its meaning publicly, but maybe a reference like “It’s a French word that often describes people in France, but almost never the French” would work.

-Steve Eggleston

I’m afraid to slip that one past the Administration, you have to assume they are really dumb. Dumb enough to, for example, think that “Gold” would be a good nickname.

It’s also the case that any French nickname is going to sound wimpish — notwithstanding that it’s really pretty macho.

. . . choices would include the Marquette Slots, the Marquette Black Jacks, the Marquette Pokers and the Marquette Casinos.

Finally, a serious comment from a supporter of “Warriors:”

The brief video clip on the Warrior concept is a classic. Father Wild must divorce himself from the racial hustlers of the Native Americans who don’t even speak for their people. The “Warriors” are a Jesuit Catholic tradition from all the way back to the founder of the Society of Jesus, Saint Ignatius of Loyola.

The Warrior mascot doesn’t need native American images. The helmet and cuirass of Saint Ignatius will do just fine.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

“Focus Groups” in the Wake of the “Gold” Decision

Here is an e-mail we should have posted two weeks ago, but did not due to the press of breaking news concerning the Marquette nickname. It was written on the Friday after the “Gold” nickname was announced, and also in reaction to a “focus group” held the evening before. Looking at it now, it provides a vivid portrait of alumni reaction in the wake of the “Gold” decision and more importantly insight on the University’s thinking.

We have added emphasis to passages we think are particularly important.

So many of you have vocally expressed your opinions and asked me about last night’s meeting that I wrote the following response. I’m sending this to those I think may be interested. It’s a summary of last night’s focus group meeting at Marquette, as I observed and interpret it, presented for your information.

Several days ago, before the new MU nickname was announced, I was invited to participate in a focus group regarding the new name.

Per the letter I received:

“This focus group is being convened to help the university understand feelings and characteristics people have about the athletics nickname after the Board of Trustees meeting on May 4th.”

The invitation was made before anyone outside the Board of Trustees knew what the new nickname might be.

Ours was the third and final focus group to meet yesterday, and it consisted of seven Milwaukee-area members of university and college alumni groups/boards. I was invited as Past President of the College of Engineering Alumni Board.

When we arrived, we were told the purpose of our meeting was to gather opinions towards the development of a new athletic mascot and/or logo. While the meeting was scheduled for 1½ hours, it actually went closer to four, the added time being used for serious discussion and venting.

Not one of us was pleased with the new name nor how it was selected. Further, we unanimously felt that this compounded the mistakes made in 1994.

Here are my observations and opinions:

We were told the Trustees’ decision is final and irrevocable. My personal opinion is that we will be stuck with this new name for several years, especially if no retraction is made in the next several weeks. Expect to see smoke and mirrors pumping up its acceptance, as was done for Golden Eagles, but expect to see the new name die of lameness within a few years.

We believe the Trustees made the sort of terrible decision that often doesn’t look bad until you’ve had time to think and reflect over it (think: beer goggles). We wonder what real alternatives were presented to the Trustees.

Most of the calls and emails we received were opposed to the process used to make the selection. The messages I received were different in that they opposed the result, not the process.

We were told that if we had a really good basketball season that much of this furor will go away. We replied that we have no team this year and we’re going to be smacked big time in the Big East.

We felt that MU was being made a laughingstock by the media, alumni from other schools, and in our own thoughts. We thought that MU embarrassed their “stakeholders,” including alumni, faculty and students.

We felt that the stakeholders had little real input to this decision. We were told that the survey generated 2,000 pages of written opinions and that both pro-Warriors and pro-Golden Eagles fans thought the survey was biased against them. Also, several of the most absurd questions were discarded, ie: “Would you destroy / discard your Warriors apparel?”

We were told the negative reaction was no worse than in 1994 when the Warriors name was dropped. While most online polls tend to attract the ends of the spectrums they survey, it’s hard to disagree with the 95% “hate it” responses to both the Milwaukee Journal and Marquette Tribune polls.

We were told that MU will work to be very inclusive in developing a logo and mascot, now that the name has been selected. We thought it was too little, too late to repair this damage.

One participant is faculty member of the Dental School. He asked for his fellow faculty’s opinions in a meeting and received 42 boos, one gold finger, and not one favorable response.

We said that Tom Crean’s appearance on Mark Belling yesterday did not help, nor did Fr. Wild’s public statements that the negativity was (paraphrasing) primarily due to people disappointed by the rejection of the Warriors name. Fr. Wild’s statement effectively discarded the opinions of most alumni as being defective.

We were told that the last name change did not affect alumni donations. One example was the overwhelming amount donated for the Al McGuire Center. We countered that this fundraising success was because Al McGuire’s name was on the project and this was not a referendum on the Golden Eagles name.

Regarding mascots and logos, we were told that they could not have any gender or race associated with them. We reviewed a variety of other schools’ mascots. I noticed and said that all of the mascots and logos that were animals or cartoons appeared to be male, ie: Bucky Badger, the Georgetown bulldog, the red blob of (Kentucky?), the orange blob of Syracuse, etc. I said I think it’s natural and normal for people to hang a gender on living creatures and that the common gender for strong figures was usually male. Look how we refer to God as male and how odd it seems when God is referred to as female.

We suggested that maybe the mascot could be something like a golden retriever puppy that grows and becomes a strong adult dog. We could name the dog “Warrior” and work to disassociate any former connotation with Indians. Whatever the mascot chosen, we should consider this. Perhaps, in the distant future, Warriors could again become a safe name to use.

I could go on, but I think I’ve hit the highlights.

In my opinion, the forgone conclusion was made early that we would not go back to the name Warriors, evidence was promoted to support that, and then a new name was chosen from a limited pool of selected favorites. Further, the above conclusion was fostered by the ever increasing tendencies of spineless weenies to bow before the “tyranny of the minority.” My objection is not so much to the process, it’s to the result. Fortunately, I also believe we will revisit this in a few years. Have hope!

A fair number of Marquette students, especially those taking courses in English, Education or Social Justice, will recognize the second of these maladies:

Almost all of the pathetic rhetoric of al Qaeda — “colonial exploitation,” “American hegemony,” or “blood for oil” — was as imported from the West as were the terrorists’ bombs and communications.

Some Western intellectuals, I think, need a bin Laden to illustrate and confirm their nihilistic ideas about their own postmodern society, just as he needs them to explain why his culture’s failure is not its own fault. So just as al Qaeda will always find an enabling Westerner to say, “You lashed out at us in frustration for your unfair treatment,” so too a guilty Westerner will always find a compliant terrorist to boast, “Yes, we kill you for your sins.” America was once a country that demolished Hitler and Tojo combined in less than four years and broke the nuclear Soviet Union — and now frets and whines that a few thousand deranged fascists want an apology.

Abroad, we battle Islamic fascists who hate us for our success and want to kill us with the tools of the modern world they despise. But at home, we are also at odds with our own privileged guilt-ridden aristocracy, whose very munificence has made them misunderstand why they are hated.

The Islamists insist, “We kill you for being soft.” Westerners in response feel, “We are killed because we are not being soft enough.”

The good news is that the Center appears to be holding and the post-modern leftists — who were, after all, on the losing side of the Cold War — are destined for increasing social irrelevance.

Friday, May 20, 2005

Bill Moyers’ Out-of-Control Rant

Bill Moyers, until recently liberal-left pundit for the Public Broadcasting System, has been under fire from conservatives for his leftist bias. In a speech at something called the National Conference for Media Reform, Moyers attacked his conservative critics, and indeed the mainstream media, and went on to explain the kind of “unbiased” reporting he did on PBS:

For these reasons and in that spirit, we went about reporting on Washington as no one else in broadcasting — except occasionally 60 Minutes — was doing. We reported on the expansion of the Justice Department’s power of surveillance. We reported on the escalating Pentagon budget and expensive weapons that didn’t work. We reported on how campaign contributions influenced legislation and policy to skew resources to the comfortable and well-connected while our troops were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq with inadequate training and armor. We reported on how the Bush administration was shredding the Freedom of Information Act. We went around the country to report on how closed-door, backroom deals in Washington were costing ordinary workers and tax payers their livelihood and security. We reported on offshore tax havens that enable wealthy and powerful Americans to avoid their fair share of national security and the social contract.

Moyers might be considered the Howard Dean of journalism. He accurately represents declining liberalism circa 2005: bitter, strident, angry, intolerant and viciously hostile to people who disagree with its politics.

Yes, we know. Not all liberals are like that. But way too many are, and those who are set the tone for the entire movement.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Marquette’s Trustee Losers

It’s not a good time to be a member of the Board of Trustees at Marquette University. The nickname fiasco, in which the Trustees refused to return to the popular “Warriors” nickname and instead decided on “Gold” is fresh in everybody’s mind. The Board rescinded the decision to go with “Gold” but the impression of hapless incompetence wasn’t wiped out.

But not all Trustees have been harmed equally. The following have, for various reasons, been the big losers — the people most clearly and vividly associated with this monumental fiasco.

Ann Zizzo — Again, Just Which Agency Was it that Had the Edsel Account?

Ann Zizzo runs something called The Zizzo Group, which is one of the hottest marketing and public relations firms in Milwaukee.

Correction, was one of the hottest marketing and public relations firms in Milwaukee.

When Marquette announced that “Gold” was going to be the new nickname, she explained that a great brand could be built around that name. That’s “Marketing 101” she said. And more: “You’re going to see opinions and attitudes change as the Gold develops and as we put out into the marketplace the future of what Gold is.”

Apparently, you have to make it to Marketing 102 to learn that you don’t launch a major brand without some test marketing, polling, focus groups . . . stuff like that.

And what course do you need to take to learn that what sounds like a good idea right now ought to be thought about for a few days — or a few weeks?

It’s hard not to agree with The Badger Blogger who concludes “I wouldn’t let her anywhere near my business after hearing this rationalization for what they did to this once prestigious university.”

If Zizzo is lucky, she will live this down within a few years. But if she’s not, this fiasco will become one of the legendary blunders in the history of marketing.

John Bergstrom — The Ron Ziegler Award for Defending a Position that Will Soon Become “Inoperative”

After the “Gold” nickname was announced on May 4, 2005, a firestorm of criticism erupted. In an obvious attempt at damage control, Trustee John F. Bergstrom came to Marquette on Saturday morning, May 7, to defend the decision to a group of (mostly) students at the Alumni Memorial Union.

He insisted that “Gold” would be built into a splendid brand, along the lines of “Green Bay Packers” and “Nike.”

Barely four days later, “Gold” had been dumped by the Board of Trustees.

John Stollenwerk — Jumping into the Breach to Defend a Position Your Comrades are Abandoning

One Trustee who clearly had some reservations about “Gold” as a nickname was John Stollenwerk. He wrote an e-mail to a friend saying that the decision was a bad one, and needed to be “rescended.”

The friend leaked it to talk show host Mark Belling, who read it on the air on Monday afternoon, May 9.

The following morning Stollenwerk responded with another e-mail — sent to Mark Belling and to Marquette’s Development Office, “clarifying” his position.

Mark,

I am traveling this week but wanted to take a moment to respond. [. . .] shared a private correspondence of ours in which I expressed a private opinion. He deemed to make it public to embarrass me and Marquette University. With friends like that who needs enemies? I fully support and voted yes on the Marquette University Board of Trustees’ decision to:

1. Not go back to the name “Warriors”2. Change the name from “Golden Eagles”3. Change the name to “Gold”

In my private comments to Mr. [. . .], I stated: “I hope they rescind this decision regarding ‘Gold’ . . .” in reference to my concern with the process wherein we did not engage all interested parties in this name change. I believe that we should make every effort to do this. The name to me is not nearly as important as the process which should clearly reflect our Jesuit Catholic values.

Note the “logic” here. Stollenwerk “supports” (note present tense) the decisions of the Board of Trustees — including the change to “Gold.” And when he said the decision should be “rescinded” he didn’t mean it should be rescinded, he was just expressing a “concern” about how the process “did not engage all interested parties.”

Barely 24 hours later, the decision to go to “Gold” had been rescinded.

Wayne Sanders — Starting a Crusade that Turns into a Fiasco

Wayne R. Sanders should be a hero here. He is the gutsy alumnus and Trustee who got up during the May 2004 graduation ceremonies and announced that he would pay $1,000,000 to Marquette if the nickname was changed back to “Warriors,” and an another alumnus (unnamed) would chip in another million. Although Marquette quickly turned down the money, the Administration announced they would reopen the issue.

Unfortunately for Sanders, gutsiness isn’t the same as skill at political infighting, and he was outmaneuvered and beaten on the Board. Even worse, he apparently eventually voted to abandon the “Warriors” nickname, and to embrace “Gold.” At least, the Administration announced that the Trustees’ votes were unanimous on both issues, and Sanders uttered not a peep of protest.

Thus the Wayne Sanders who was a real Warrior in May of 2004 became just another impotent Trustee in May 2005.

What Is it With the Trustees?

None of these Trustees is a bad person, and none is stupid. But all failed Marquette in this case. Some combination of group think and “team spirit” distorted their actions. Somehow, they felt it was in Marquette’s interest for all the Trustees to present a “united front” and unanimously vote for something they didn’t believe in (doing away with “Warriors”) and for something that turned out to be fabulously stupid (adopting “Gold”).

The honest and open expression of honest disagreements would have served the University better.

And now, the Trustee who is also the President of Marquette University.

Rev. Robert Wild — Allowing Yourself to be Hustled by Race Hustlers

According to Fr. Wild, he did indeed favor a return to “Warriors” when Sanders first raised the issue. So what dissuaded him? He talked to a small group of Indian tribal leaders who told him they would be offended if Marquette went back to “Warriors.”

By the time Wild talked to them, it had already been decided that Marquette would not use an Indian mascot nor Indian imagery. But the tribal leaders said the name “Warriors” could not be separated from previous use of Indian imagery.

Among those advocating a return to Warriors — a nickname used by 27 universities across the country, including Wisconsin Lutheran College in Milwaukee — was university President Robert A. Wild.

In conversations with American Indian tribes and bands over the last year, however, Wild realized it was impossible to divorce the nickname from its ugly past.

“We’re dealing with a human dignity issue, and that’s real basic stuff for a Catholic and Jesuit university,” Wild said.

The supposed “ugly past” was Willie Wampum, a cartoon caricature the use of which was discontinued in 1971.

But Wild knew about Willie Wampum in the early fall when, according to him, he was in favor of changing the nickname back to Warriors. And the notion that “Warriors” is “offensive” wasn’t immediately obvious to Ray DePerry, Marquette’s rather suspect “Native American Spokesperson.”

Only when the tribal leaders found that they could bully Marquette did they finally decide that they would veto “Warriors.”

We don’t view Wild as personally terribly politically correct, but it’s obvious that he’s not up, intellectually, to dealing with the politically correct people in Marquette’s Administration, nor with politically correct victim groups like the Indians.

It seemed like a bright idea at the time. When we saw where we were headed with Warriors, we said, “Look at what Syracuse has done. They went from Orangemen to Orange. Hey, one of our oldest traditions really has been our school colors, blue and gold.” We had the Golden Eagles. We had the Golden Avalanche when we had a football team. We tried to tap into that.

In reality, the whole imbroglio has made Wild look naïve, inept and ineffective. This will overshadow all his other actions as President at Marquette.

Indians Don’t Consider “Warriors” Offensive

Up at the Lac du Flambeau Public School, on the Lac du Flambeau reservation in the northern part of the state, the athletic teams go by the nickname Warriors. The logo is a profile of a Chippewa Indian.

The school district is virtually all Native American, including the Ojibwa tribe. There is an academic and values achievement program called the Warrior Challenge. It’s about prideful self-determination.

For all but the most terminally politically correct, the cat is out of the bag. Indian nicknames are something that offends self-righteous white leftists, and a handful of Indian racial hustlers who specialize in telling self-righteous white leftists what they want to hear. They don’t offend real-world Indians.

Why Islam is Disrespected

From Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe, some reactions to the fact that a bogus Newsweek story about American troops at Guantanamo flushing a copy of the Koran down a toilet led to riots in Muslim countries. At least 17 people were killed in those riots.

No one recalled, for example, that American Catholics lashed out in violent rampages in 1989, after photographer Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” – a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine – was included in an exhibition subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts. Or that they rioted in 1992 when singer Sinead O’Connor, appearing on “Saturday Night Live,” ripped up a photograph of Pope John Paul II.

There was no reminder that Jewish communities erupted in lethal violence in 2000, after Arabs demolished Joseph’s Tomb, torching the ancient shrine and murdering a young rabbi who tried to save a Torah. And nobody noted that Buddhists went on a killing spree in 2001 in response to the destruction of two priceless, 1,500-year-old statues of Buddha by the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Of course, there was a good reason all these bloody protests went unremembered in the coverage of the Newsweek affair: They never occurred.

Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don’t lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot in the streets. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain. But when Reuters reported what Mohammad Hanif, the imam of a Muslim seminary in Pakistan, said about the alleged Koran-flushers – “They should be hung. They should be killed in public so that no one can dare to insult Islam and its sacred symbols” – was any reader surprised?

Our view is that deeply held religious convictions should be respected – and respected regardless of whether they are Christian, Jewish, Moslem or something else.

Which is why we can’t help but notice that the mainstream media have no problem demeaning conservative Christians – as the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election showed.

But intellectual clarity on Islam is difficult, both on a university campus and in the precincts of the liberal mainstream media for the simple reason that Moslems now have, on the left, official victim status.

Before 9/11, Moslems were the backward people who oppressed women. Now, they are the righteous avengers of all the evils America has imposed on the third world.

On a campus like Marquette’s, Arab students can stage a hate fest directed against Israel and the Jews with the approval of the local Axis of Grievance – the Office of Student Development, the Campus Ministry, JUSTICE and Student Government.

Victim status, of course, is just as destructive when given to Arabs as it is when granted to blacks, Hispanics or American Indians. The sooner there is a hue and cry demanding that Moslems abide by the laws of morality that apply to every other religion, the better.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Marquette Student Government: Claiming Undeserved Credit

Political Scientist David Mayhew is famous (at least among other political scientists) for explaining how members of Congress work to ingratiate themselves with their constituents.

One of the tactics he lists is “credit claiming” whereby members claim credit for good things that happen in their districts whether they had anything to do with the good news or not.

Thus it’s no surprise to find the politicians-in-training at Marquette University Student Government claiming credit for articulating the “student voice” during the week following the hapless Trustee decision to go with “Gold” as a sports nickname.

In reality, they were slow to get on the bandwagon, and did so only when it became unstoppable.

Naturally, this has been roundly resented by those students who were in the vanguard of the anti-Gold movement, especially Ryan Alexander at the 1832.COM blog, and the Republicans who run the GOP3.COM blog.

These students quickly and roundly denounced the Gold nickname on their blogs. They posted petitions on their blogs opposing the Gold nickname. They turned out to demonstrate against Gold as a nickname.

All the while MUSG was temporizing. Indeed, as the GOP3.COM blog reports:

Ryan [Alexander] also points out that only 3 senators signed the petition, which brings up the issue of student senator culpability. The MUSG resolution requesting that the nickname decision be re-examined passed 20-5-2. The large majority of students disagree with the 5 opposed senators and the 2 who abstained but, can we get the names of the senators who are so out of touch? No, they only do votes by a show of hands or secret ballot, they are all too scared to do a roll call vote, and that’s not just this bill but every bill. Practices like this only hurt the chances that MUSG will ever be more than a university mouthpiece with senators who are elected in popularity contests. How can you know that your senator represents you or does anything they promised when they will not even release their voting records?

Of course, the insurgent students are in training to be political office holders someday too.

Between those students working hand-in-glove with the Administration, and those willing to give the Administration trouble, we of course instinctively side with the latter. We already have too many politicians claiming credit for things they did nothing to bring about.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Another Indian Doesn’t Know to be Offended by “Warriors”

Journal-Sentinel sportswriter Jim Stingl, in an article that was generally sympathetic to the Administration for stone-walling on the “Warriors” nickname, decided to see what an actual American Indian (rather than Marquette bureaucrats) thought about the issue:

I called Andrew Beechtree, an American Indian who taught my children middle school social studies. There’s a likeness of him in that Tribute to Survival carousel at the Milwaukee Public Museum.

The tribe leaders don’t speak for him, he said, and he’s not bothered by the Warrior name. “The things that offend me are what just happened in Zion, Illinois, and not having enough troops in Iraq,” he said.

The first rule of Political Correctness is “the only minority group members who matter are those who talk like white liberals and leftists. Ignore all the others.”

Monday, May 16, 2005

Marquette: “Human Dignity” For A Tiny Few

When the University announced it was going to ban “Warriors” as an athletic nickname, it made two claims as to why this was necessary. As the official news release claims:

The Board of Trustees voted not to reinstate the Warriors athletics nickname stating that as a Catholic, Jesuit university, it would hold itself to the highest possible standards of its mission, which include recognizing and appreciating the dignity of every person.

So using “Warriors” fails to show respect for “the dignity of every person” and fails to meet the University’s “highest possible standards of its mission.”

If this is true, there are a lot of very derelict people around.

For example, even the biased poll that the University did showed that majorities of all the “stakeholder” groups liked “Warriors.” According to the University:

92% of alumni said they identify with the Marquette Warriors.

62% of students said that they identify with the Marquette Warriors. 19% were neutral or did not answer, and another 19% did not identify with the Marquette Warriors.

Among faculty and staff, opinions were more closely divided: 55% of the faculty did identify, 33% did not, and 12% were either neutral or did not answer.

Thus it seems we have an overwhelming majority of alumni favoring “Warriors,” a lopsided majority of students, and even a clear majority of the (generally left-leaning) faculty.

Alumni

For Wild, it ought to be a huge embarrassment that so many alumni and students favor “Warriors.” Here is a nickname that is inconsistent with “human dignity” and with the “University mission,” and it’s hugely popular.

Marquette truly did a terrible job of educating these people.

We wonder whether the University will offer to give all these alumni their tuition money back – with interest – since they were so obviously poorly educated at Marquette.

Of course, they are certainly in synch with the University’s “mission” when they write large checks to the school. But then when they want “Warriors” as a nickname, they turn into a bunch of ignorant rednecks.

Much the same analysis holds for students and faculty. Are all current Marquette students going to get an e-mail advising them to transfer to another school – one where they will learn the true meaning of “human dignity?”

All Those Dumb Indians

Not only do clear majorities of Marquette’s “stakeholders” favor Warriors, a clear majority of American Indians nationwide sees nothing wrong with Indian nicknames and mascots.

(We will leave aside for a moment the fact that “Warriors” isn’t necessarily an Indian nickname to be accompanied by an Indian mascot.)

The Florida Seminoles have made it clear that they fully approve Florida State’s teams being called “Seminoles” and students at Penbroke State University in North Carolina (a former Indian school with a large Indian presence) insist they want to be called “Braves.”

What are we to make of all this? Simple. All these Indians are dumb. The tiny minority of Indians who tell politically correct whites what they want to hear are the smart ones.

Let’s just ask a simple question here: which is more demeaning to Indians, having an Indian team name and mascot, or saying that 80+ percent of them are too stupid to know they are being denigrated?

Marquette has done the latter.

Of course, a majority can be wrong. If majority opinion is on one side, and the evidence is on the other, go with the evidence.

But the problem here is that Marquette has presented no evidence that there is anything offensive about “Warriors.” They have simply claimed that Indians are “offended” by it. In other words, they have appealed to the subjective opinions of a group. And they haven’t even told the truth about what the opinions of the whole group are.

Further, the majority of Marquette “stakeholders” aren’t being accused of a random error. They are being accused of being, at best, callous clods, and at worst racists. Marquette isn’t merely claiming they are wrong, but that they lack respect for “the dignity of every person.”

What we have here is an Administration that thinks that they and a tiny minority of Indians have the sound moral judgment. Thus they have to impose their view on everybody else. Those who disagree are stupid, or insensitive louts or too prejudiced to be allowed any say-so.

How about “War Eagles?”

The Internet has been awash with suggestions as to what the new Marquette athletics nickname should be. Here is a “way better thought out than average” suggestion. And yes, we know that Auburn has “War Eagles” but they are in a different region of the country and so far as we know Marquette never plays Auburn. Since the Marquette administration continues to reject the wishes of the majority of alums, students and supporters of the University by refusing to consider the Warriors nickname, I have come up with a nickname/mascot that will be a close of mix the old with the recent past. It also has rich Wisconsin history. What could possibly be better? It is the War Eagles. Obviously combining a little bit of the old with the recent past. The Wisconsin history connection is interesting.

Company C of the Eighth Wisconsin Regiment had a War Eagle mascot named “Old Abe” when it served during the Civil War between 1861 and 1864.

Old Abe went into battle with the Eighth Wisconsin numerous times and was retired after 4 years of service with the Regiment. He was then given to the State in 1864. A replica of Old Abe is perched above the Speaker’s Podium in the Assembly Chambers of the State Capitol. Here are a couple of websites that give a history of Wisconsin’s War Eagle of Company C of the Eighth Wisconsin Regiment:

I think War Eagles would be a perfect fit since “Warriors” is being rejected outright. It even has that touch of great Wisconsin history. Too bad someone will probably find the use of the word “war” to be offensive, even if it commemorates the brave soldiers of the Eighth Wisconsin and the Eagle that “led” them into battle.

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Warrior Video

Friday, May 13, 2005

“Warriors” Was OK With the Indians For A While

Marquette has been claiming that the use of “Warriors” as a nickname is somehow offensive to the “dignity” of American Indians, but the very same “Spokesperson” whom Marquette allowed to dictate the outcome of the issue didn’t always see it that way. From Dale Hofman of the Journal-Sentinel:

In this space about eight months ago, Ray DePerry, the president of the Great Lakes Inter-tribal Council, said he had an open mind on the Marquette image.

“If it’s some vicious dog, and the dog’s name is Warrior, I have no problem,” he said. “If it’s a people thing, now we’re talking about something different. . . . No people. No ethnic group. If it’s Warriors, let’s be creative and see what we can come up with.”

Wild and friends met with the Inter-tribal Council a week later, and it appears the American Indians had changed their minds by then and made it clear that they were against Warriors under any circumstances. Several attempts to reach DePerry to find out why that might have been were unsuccessful Thursday.

If “Warriors” is so obviously an affront to the “dignity” of Indians, how come DePerry didn’t see it that way immediately?

It seems that the issue was open until it became clear that Marquette was entirely craven on the issue, and that the Indians could bully the University if they wanted.

Marquette’s Tainted “Native American Spokesperson”

When Marquette University wanted to talk to a “Native American Spokesperson” about the “Warriors” issue, they invited one Raymond DePerry to come and discuss it with the Executive Board. A press release from the University explains the details:

At its regular meeting on the Mole Lake Reservation yesterday, the Great Lakes Inter-tribal Council voted to oppose the change of Marquette team names from the Golden Eagles to the Marquette Warriors. Raymond DePerry, President of the Great Lakes Inter-tribal Council and Chairman of the Red Cliff Chippewa Tribe near Bayfield, informed the Great Lakes Inter-tribal Council of his meeting with Fr. Robert Wild and the Marquette University Executive Board on November 10. Fr. Wild had approached the Council at its September 30 meeting, asking for input from the tribal communities about the name change proposal, and Chairman DePerry had responded to an invitation to meet with the executive board to discuss the proposal.

It seems, however, that DePerry is more than a bit suspect as a “Native American Spokesperson.” Just last month, the Red Cliff Tribal Council decided he could not stand for reelection as Chairman. As explained in an article in the Ashland Daily Press:

Actions taken by the Red Cliff Tribal Council Tuesday have resulted in the termination of the tribe’s financial manager and disqualification of tribal chairman Ray DePerry from seeking a third term in office.

In a . . . tribal council meeting held Tuesday evening, the council voted to deny DePerry certification to be included on the ballot for Tribal Chairman for this summer’s election.

The action came on a motion from at-large tribal council member Lynne Basina and was seconded by fellow tribal council member Leon Basina.

The reason for the denial of certification was that DePerry was alleged not to reside on the Red Cliff Reservation.

DePerry said it “seemed odd” that the two chairman candidates would not have removed themselves from the vote for ethical reasons.

“But in my opinion, some of these people don’t have any ethics,” he said. “They are self centered, egotistical and have an agenda.”

According to Tribal Council member Jean Buffalo-Reyes:

“We know he does not live on the reservation, he lives in the Town of Bayfield. I think Ann Sullivan said it in a very eloquent way last night; ‘Ray, we are not dumb, this is a small community, don’t think you can get away with something like this.’”

We need to show a level of integrity, and he is demonstrating a level of awkwardness about the level of knowledge that the community people have. It is common knowledge, because this is such a small community, that Ray does not live on the reservation.”

Buffalo-Reyes said under the Red Cliff constitution, the tribal chairman has to live on the reservation.

Buffalo-Reyes denied that the vote was part of a continuing campaign against DePerry.

“It is not a vendetta. All it is, is what he thought he could get over on people. There is no vendetta.”

Tribal Council member Leon Basina said the DePerry decision was a straightforward matter of complying with the tribe’s constitution.

Basina discounted DePerry’s arguments that he maintained a residence on the reservation.

“That’s pretty easy to do, anybody in the world can show a residency here,” he said. “That’s what the issue is. If we would have allowed this, then any enrolled member of the Red Cliff Band living anywhere could establish a residency by claiming to live with some relative or something. That’s what the issue is. If we allow it once, we’ve got to allow it forever.”

So it seems that DePerry is a fellow who tried to retain his position as a tribal leader by claiming a fake residence. And when called on it by fellow Tribal Council members, he turned to invective, saying “They are self centered, egotistical and have an agenda.” And another member of the Tribal Council questioned his integrity.